courtyard design in schools and its influence on students’ … · 2020. 10. 12. · martirosyan...

5th World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering (CSEE'20)

Lisbon, Portugal Virtual Conference – October 2020 Paper No. ICGRE 197

DOI: 10.11159/icgre20.197

ICGRE 197 - 1

Courtyard Design in Schools and its Influence on Students’ Satisfaction

Dr. Muna Salameh 1, Dr. Basim Touqan2, May Salameh3

1Ajman University

Ajman, UAE

[email protected] ; [email protected] 2Siemens LLC

Dubai, UAE

[email protected]

Abstract: The courtyard as architectural passive design strategy has proved its capability of enhancing the thermal

conditions of buildings. Apart from the good thermal impacts of the courtyard, there are other effects that were not tapped

and need to be explored such as the satisfaction of the courtyard’s users in terms of psychological and wellbeing factors.

This study attempts to investigate and assess the relationship between the existing design of the school courtyards in UAE

with the students’ satisfaction. A self-administrated questionnaire was distributed between students of secondary classes in

two private schools in UAE to gather the data. Six hypotheses were developed to explore and validate the mentioned

relationship; SPSS (Statistical Package for Science Software) program was used to apply several tests such as regression

analysis to examine the developed hypotheses. The results showed high relationship significance between the School

Courtyard Design and Students’ Satisfaction, so that the courtyard design can shape the student satisfaction as global

variable with 29.2 %, with many other important findings. The work opens the door for architects and school principals

alike to understand the effect of the school courtyard design on students’ satisfaction, which consequently leads to better

academic achievement.

Keywords: Courtyard’s design, SPSS, UAE, Social health, Student satisfaction.

1. Introduction The consumption of energy in the world is increasing extremely because of population growth and because

of the technology development in all aspects of life. The high-energy consumption -especially by buildings

negatively affected the environment and the general health. Nations by time realized the importance of adopting

passive design solutions like courtyards in preserving energy [1], [2]. Courtyard is one of passive design strategies that were used since thousands of years in public and private

buildings [3], [4]. Edwards [5] stated that courtyard was developed as a result of interaction between the building

and the environment to provide thermal comfort for the building and natural ventilation without energy

consumption especially in hot arid places like UAE [6], [7], [8]. Several schools in UAE have courtyards in the

center of the building as a core for the arrangement of the classes and the facilities. The courtyard in the school

provides private outdoor environment for students’ activities, space for playing and relaxation in the break time.

Many researches were conducted for the purpose of examining the influence of courtyards thermal behavior and

ventilation on the interior spaces around it [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Most of the researchers who addressed

courtyards discussed and highlighted the courtyard positive effect on the environment of the building; however,

there was no approach regarding courtyard psychological and mental effect on the occupants, especially in

schools. In this research a quantitative analysis will be conducted to discuss the effect of the courtyards in

schools on the satisfaction of the students, which therefore affects their educational achievement. The

satisfaction of the students is very important issue in the educational process because of its effects on the

student’s behavior and achievement in school. Brown and Mazzarol [14] declared that the institutional

appearance affects the satisfaction of the students thus their loyalty and achievement, on the other hand

Grossman and Goodhart [15] discussed the importance of the student satisfaction in supporting student relations

and motivations.

mailto:[email protected]



ICGRE 197-2

2. Literature Review

2.1 Courtyards and schools

Courtyards can provide motivations for users’ happiness, comfort, relaxing and socialization [16], [17]. Rigolon [18] mentioned in his study that schools courtyards were included strongly in the school designing

discussions; moreover he focused in his study on school buildings that presented innovative factors in the field

of spaces for learning and socializing. Evaluating the students’ satisfaction is an important process for the

education practitioners so they can review the best methods of teaching techniques based on best measures for

students’ satisfaction [19].

2.2 Student Satisfaction

The satisfaction of the students is an important driver for better educational achievement. The student

satisfaction can be achieved within the school building by better social interaction, enhanced learning

motivations, mental and physical comfort, and pleasant outdoor space. Uline and Tschannen-Moran [20] affirmed in their study that the physical environment of the school including the building characteristics,

facilities and design affect the social atmosphere thus the educational achievement and their general satisfaction.

Martirosyan [21] stated that the students’ satisfaction is essential for better educational achievement. Courtyards

can improve the students’ level of socialization, mental and physical well-being, and happiness [22]. Social interaction is a key factor for student satisfaction in schools; because of that it is integrated it in the

educational plan. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson and Öhrström [23] stated that the courtyard can improve the social

interaction of the users and can give a sense of relaxation. Kolozali and Kolozali [24] Stated that the courtyard is

essential in the passive and active social life for the students. Salameh [7] and Rigolon [18] insisted on the

importance of the presence of the courtyard space in a school building as an innovative reason for a better social

and education atmosphere.

Hawker [25] conducted a study that confirmed the positive link between the physical fit and the mental

wellbeing of the students in a school. On the other hand, Markus et al. [26] pointed to the courtyard as a space

for physiological health. Thus, school’s courtyard is important in any school design plan to achieve health

fitness and mental wellbeing among school students.

Matsuoka [27] mentioned the direct effect of landscaping within the school building courtyard as a pleasing

outdoor space that positively impacts on student satisfaction as it can reduce mental stress and tension. Lau and

Yang [28] mentioned that natural features in the courtyard can improve the students’ senses, meditation and

mental well-being, and motivation. Therefor the courtyard can be perceived as a major part for students’

motivation towards the educational process. Matsuoka and Kaplan [29] turned to the fact that landscape in the

open spaces provides the users with comfort thus it can be perceived as pleasant outdoor space, which can be

reflected on student educational behavior. Eddy [30] insisted that the courtyards are essential outdoor spaces in

schools, as they provide the students with pleasant outdoor spaces for playing, socializing and relaxation.

Furthermore, they engage students into a real scientific outdoor lab about plants and climates. Additionally, he

added that a courtyard with a suitable design could inspire the students and improve their educational

achievements. Therefore, integrating natural in the courtyard can convert it to a pleasant outdoor space and can

be considered as a reason for students’ satisfaction.

3. Conceptual Framework Based on previous literature review the study model was established as shown in (Figure1). There are six

main developed hypotheses to examine the connection between the “School Courtyard Design” and “Student

Satisfaction” as global variables beside examining the connection between their facets. The hypotheses are

explained in the following statement: H1: A strong connection is hypothesized between “Student Satisfaction”

ICGRE 197-3

and “School Courtyard Design”. Nevertheless, additional five sets of hypotheses were developed so that each

set consists of three sub hypotheses identified table 1.

Fig. 1: The six main developed hypotheses of the research.

Table 1: The six main developed hypotheses of the research.

The six main developed hypotheses of the research

H1: A strong connection is hypothesized between “Student

Satisfaction” and “School Courtyard Design”.

H2-1: A strong connection is hypothesized between “Learning

Motivation” and “School Courtyard Area and Services”


Motivation” and “School Courtyard Decoration and

Environmental Comfort”


Motivation” and “School Courtyard Noise”

H3-1: A strong connection is hypothesized between “Physical

and Mental Well-being” and “School Courtyard Area and

Services”

H3-2: A strong connection is hypothesized d between

“Physical and Mental Well-being” and “School Courtyard

Decoration and Environmental Comfort”

H3-3: A strong connection is hypothesized between “Physical

and Mental Well-being “and “School Courtyard Noise”

H4-1: A strong connection is hypothesized between “Pleasant

Outdoor Space” and “School Courtyard Area and Services”


Outdoor Space” and “School Courtyard Decoration and



Outdoor Space” and “School Courtyard Noise”

H5-1: A strong connection is hypothesized between “Suitable

place for social interaction and break meal” and “School

Courtyard Area and Services”



Courtyard Decoration and Environmental Comfort”



Courtyard Noise


Studying Place” and “School Courtyard Area and Services”


Studying Place” and “School Courtyard Decoration and



Studying Place” and “School Courtyard Noise.

ICGRE 197-4

4. Research Methodology This section will discuss the methods and processes adopted to implement the research work and to

examine the study’s hypotheses.

4.1 Research’s sample

Primary data of this research was obtained from the feedback on self-administrated questionnaire filled by

high school students from two schools located in the Emirate of Sharjah in UAE. The collected complete

questionnaires were 296 only out of 450 with response rate of 65%, however five of them were discarded as the

data obtained was invalid, so that the final sample size ended with 291 students. The sampling error was

calculated and found to be 5.7% based on a calculated margin error matching confidence of 95%.

4.2 Study’s Instrument

The tool implemented in this research was a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. Part

one was pertaining to demographic information. Demographic questions were developed in order to pre-screen

the demographic information such as “Gender” and “School grade”. Part two was pertaining to the factors of the

“School Courtyard Design” and was consisted of 12 items. Part three was pertaining to the factors of “Student

Satisfaction” and was consisted of 17 items. All the items were developed and determined according to the

survey objectives, the conventions of the researches and other related references. Likert’s five-point scale was

used to evaluate all the questions of part two and part three, i.e. highest is “strongly agrees” 5 and the lowest is 1

for “strongly disagree”.

4.3 Study variables and measures

The study was based on two major or global variables, “School Courtyard Design” as Independent variable

and “Student Satisfaction” as Dependent variable. Both variables were assumed to be multidimensional which

will be investigated in the factor analysis test, the study model is illustrated in previous (Figure 1). The model

shows the layout of the variables and factors along with relationships between each other. The independent

variable “School Courtyard Design” was dimensioned by three factors which are: “School Courtyard Area and

Services”, “School Courtyard Thermal Comfort & Decoration” and “School Courtyard Noise”, the independent

factors were measured by 12 items. On the other hand, the dependent variable “Student Satisfaction” was

dimensioned by five factors which are: “Learning Motivation”, “Physical & Mental Wellbeing”, “Pleasant

Outdoor Space”, “Suitable place for social interaction and break meal” and “ Suitable studying place”; the

dependent factors were measured by 17 items.

4.4 Statistical analysis

The survey data were correctly coded then different tests were implemented through SPSS. Reliability test

was conducted to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire [31]. Furthermore, factor analysis test was

employed to examine the global variables multidimensionality and whether the items forming the factors of

global variables were valid or not. Besides that, Pearson Chi Square test was conducted between demographic

data with Independent factors to investigate the relationship between the demographic variables and

independent factors of the courtyard design. regression analysis test was used for further investigation regarding

the relationships between Independent and Dependent global variables and the links between the independent

facets with dependents facets.

5. Interpretation of the Resulted Data and Discussions In this section, the data obtained was processed by SPSS (Statistical Package for Science Software)

program to analyze the data and to read behind the statistics. The following items were regarded to be texted in

the questionnaire in a negative meaning: “The courtyard can be sometimes a source of noise for some

classrooms” and “The courtyard can be sometimes a source of distraction for the students & teachers in the

classrooms”, hence the obtained answers (from 1 to 5) of both items were reversed and recoded.

ICGRE 197-5

5.1 Descriptive Statistics

In this part, the demographic frequencies along with percentages were presented to see the pattern of

frequency distribution. As far as the gender is concerned, the number of female students responded to the

questionnaire was greater than the males (174 female students with 59.8% of total respondents versus 117 male

students with 40.2% of total respondents).

Table 2: Frequency and percentage of demographic variables.

Gender Frequency ercentage %

Female 174 59.80%

Male 117 40.20%

Total 291 100.00%

5.2 Factor analysis As per the discussions presented in literature review of the study, Independent and dependent variables

have been concluded to be multidimensional variables; however factor analysis test via SPSS program is

employed to examine the global variables multidimensionality and whether the items forming the factors of

global variables are valid or not. Berk et al. [32] has turned to the factor analysis and how a variable can be

structured, as they stated that factor analysis is a method that filters and discards the weak correlated items that

cannot be valid to represent and measure the factor. SPSS in factor analysis process calculates the correlation of

the items, rotate, and load them under a factor; the cut off value for correlation is 0.5, no matter whether the

score is positive or negative. Table-3 shows the outcome of factor analysis varimax rotation conducted on

Independent variable of 12 items, the 3 dimensions of “School Courtyard Design” variable were successfully

loaded but with 9 items only scoring above 0.5 on the varimax rotation. These factors were “School Courtyard

Area and Services” (F1), “School Courtyard Environmental Comfort & Decoration” (F2) and “School

Courtyard Noise” (F3), however 2 items were completely dropped from (F2) and one item from (F3) as they

were scoring less than 0.5. Based on that the factors were recomputed by excluding these items, so that they

were excluded also from all the further analysis when using regressions tests.

Table 3: Factor loading of school courtyard Design.

Independent variable items Component

1 2 3

Environmental_ Decoration-1 0.593

0.850

0.881

Environmental -Decoration_2 0.606



Environmental -Decoration_5

Environmental -Decoration_6

Area _Services_ 1

Area_Services_2 0.793

Area_Services_3

Area_Services_4 -0.510

Courtyard _Noise_ 1

Courtyard_Noise_2 0.870

Similarly, factor analysis test has been conducted on the factors related to the dependent variable. Table-4

displays the outcome of factor analysis varimax rotation conducted on dependent variable of 17 items. The 5

dimensions of “Student Satisfaction” variable were successfully loaded, but with 16 items only scoring above

0.5 on the varimax rotation, these factors are : “Physical & Mental Wellbeing” (F1), “Pleasant Outdoor Space”

(F2), “Learning Motivation” (F3), “Suitable place for social interaction and break meal” (F4) and “ Suitable

ICGRE 197-6

Studying Place” (F5), on the other hand one item from (F1) was dropped as it was scoring less than 0.5. It can

be noted that item 1 and 5 from (F2) were loaded in (F4) which can be merged and recomputed in (F4) but

before taking any action regarding re-labeling and re-computing of (F4), a proactive step has been conducted by

carrying out early reliability test on (F4) items including the 2 items from (F2). The result of the test showed

that items of new (F4) can be reliable only if items 1 and 5 of the original (F2) are dropped, thus these items

were completely dropped from all factors, and were not considered in any further significance tests, thus final

number of dependent variable items reached by factor analysis process were 14 items.

Table 4: Factor loading of student satisfaction.

Dependent variable items Component

1 2 3 4 5

Physical _ Mental_ 1

0.615

0.632

0.794

0.685

0.610

Physical_Mental_2

Physical_Mental_3 0.770



Pleasant _ Outdoor_ 1

Pleasant _ Outdoor_ 2

Pleasant _ Outdoor_ 3 0.702

Pleasant _Outdoor_ 4 .5 11



Learning_ Motivation_ 1

Learning_Motivation_2 0.793

Social _ Eating_ 1 0.530

Social_ Eating_ 2 .56 1

Suitable _Studying_ 1

Suitable -Studying 2 0.817

On the other hand, the factor analysis were conducted on both questions of independent and dependent

variables, and they had loaded two items or more in multi factors for each variable by which it was concluded

that both variables have the multidimensionality features.

5.3 Reliability Test

Reliability test is assessing how much reliable are the items or questions of any variable when measuring

the same variable. The measure (group of items) can be considered as reliable if it gets same outcome under

consistent conditions. With the statistical analysis, it is the normal way to consider reliability by adopting the

concept that items of any questionnaire should have consistency within the entire questionnaire [33]. Cronbach

Alpha test was conducted to assess the items’ reliability which represent the dimensions of the research

variables. Suliman [34] has considered the minimum value for reliability in his work as 0.6, which was taken on

in this study as well. Table - 5 shows the results of reliability test applied on the items filtered and resulted by

factor analysis which was conducted in section (4.2). Upon conducting the reliability test it was found that the

items which represent the three factors of Independent variable were reliable with reliability values as stated in

Table 5. One item from factor “Courtyard Area and Services” was dropped to attain reliability value of (0.788).

likewise the reliable items were also reported for the items represented the factors of Dependent variable except

the items of factor” Suitable Studying Place” as the reliability value reported was (0.545), hence the factor was

dropped totally from the study and excluded from further analysis. Consequently, the entire hypotheses related

to this dimension was considered as dropped as well, thus H6-1, H6b and H6-3 could not be established.

ICGRE 197-7

Table 5: Cronbach alpha test for research factors and entire questionnaire.

Factors of Independent Global Variable

No Factor No. of items Cronbach Alpha Value No of dropped items

1 Courtyard Area and Services 2 0.788 1

2 Courtyard Environmental Comfort

and decoration

4 0.618 nil

3 Courtyard Noise 2 0.724 nil

Factors of Dependent Global Variable


1 Physical and Mental Well-being 4 0.777 Nil

2 Pleasant Outdoor Place 4 0.737 Nil

3 Learning Motivation 2 0.769 Nil

4 Social Interacting and Eating Place 2 0.647 Nil

5 Suitable Studying Place 2 0.545 2*

All questionnaire items


1 All filtered item 20 0.86 Nil

* The entire factor has to be dropped as Cronbach alpha 22222test has indicated a weak consistency of items to

measure the factor with value of 0.545. Therefor links and hypothesis (H2-6. H3-6 and H4-6) related to this factor

are considered as not validated thus not established.

However, the final filtered items representing the entire questionnaire showed high reliability of 0.860. for

all the variables and the factors, thus they are consistent to conduct regression tests to assess the developed

hypotheses.

5.4 Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses can be tested by applying regression tests. The aim is to obtain statistical evidences that either

support or reject the developed hypotheses. Regression analysis test was implemented in this section to

investigate the relationships between Independent and Dependent global variables and the links between the

independent facets with dependents facets. Thus, the regression test and the obtained regression model and its

factors can reveal the significance status for each hypothesis or the connection between any variables or factors

of this study. F, t, R and R square are the important coefficients that explain the regression model [35]. The

regression between School Courtyard Design and Student satisfaction was shown in Table-9, “F” value reported

to be (120.333) and indicated high significance at a value of p< 0.001 , “R” value was (0.542) so that adjusted

“R square” value was (0.292) which means 29.2 % of the variation in Students’ Satisfaction was shaped by

School Courtyard design. Agreeing with the results obtained from regression tests, hypothesis H1 that stated,

“There is a significant link between “School Courtyard Design” and “Student Satisfaction” was established.

Table 9: The regression between School Courtyard Design and Student satisfaction.

Relationship F value Sig

level

R Adjusted

R squared

Factor t* β

Student Satisfaction (with)

Courtyard Design

120.333 < 0.001 0.542 0.292 School Courtyard

Design

6.966 0.542

*t value shows significance of < .001

The results in Table-10 evaluated the set of hypotheses H2-1 , H2-2 and H2-3. The regression results

between the three Independent factors and “Learning Motivation” as dependent factor was displayed in the same

ICGRE 197-8

table. “F” value of (15.718) showed high significant at a value of p< 0.001. “R” value was (0.376) so that

adjusted “R square” value was (0.132) which means 13.2 % of variation in “Learning Motivation” was shaped

by the three factors of the Independent variable. The (t) value of the independent factor “Courtyard

Environmental Comfort and Decoration” was (5.025). This factor had the greatest impact in predicting the

“Learning Motivation” with beta value of (0.285). The factor “Courtyard Area and Services” which had (t)

value of (3.158) and came in the second place of importance in predicting the Students’ “Learning Motivation”,

its beta value was (0.179). In the meantime, the (t) value of the factor “Courtyard Noise” was (-0.156) with

negative impact in predicting the “Learning Motivation” and with beta value of (-0.009).

Table 10: The regression results for the set of hypotheses H2-1 , H2-2 and H2-3.

Relationship F

value

Sig

level

R Adjusted

R square

Factor t* β Hypothesis validation

Learning

Motivation

(with):

15.718 <0.001 0.376 0.132 1. Courtyard Area and

services

3.158 0.179 H2-1 was considered as

supported

2. Courtyard

Environmental

Comfort & Decoration


supported

3. Courtyard Noise -0.156 -0.009 H2-3 was considered as

rejected

* t value shows significance for factor 1 and 2 with values of .002 and < .001 respectively while there is no significance for factor

3 with value of .876

Results in Table-11 addressed the validity of the set of hypotheses H3-1, H3-2 and H3-3. The regression

results between the three Independent factors and “Physical and Mental Well-being” as dependent factor were

displayed in the same table. “F” value of (43.413) showed high significant at a value of p< 0.001, “R” value

was (0.559) so that adjusted “R square” value was (0.305) which means 30.5 % of variation in Students’

“Physical and Mental Well-being” was shaped by the three factors of Independent variable. The (t) value of the

independent factor “Courtyard Environmental Comfort and Decoration” was (6.883). This factor had the

greatest impact in predicting the “Physical and Mental Well-being” with beta value of (0.350). The factor

“Courtyard Area and Services” which had (t) value of (6.751) and came in the second place of importance in

predicting the Students’ “Physical and Mental Well-being”, its beta value was (0.343). In the meantime, the (t)

value of the factor “Courtyard Noise” was (-1.737) with negative impact in predicting the “Physical and Mental

Well-being” with beta value of (-0.085).

Table 11: The validity of the set of hypotheses H3-1, H3-2 and H3-3.

Relationship F

value

Sig

level

R Adjusted

R square


Physical

and Mental

well-being

(with):

43.413 <0.001 0.559 0.305 1.Courtyard Area and

services


supported

2.Courtyard

Environmental



supported

3.Courtyard Noise -1.737 -0.085 H3-3 was considered as

rejected

* t value shows significance for factor 1 and 2 with values of < .001 while there is no significance for factor 3 with value of .084

The results of regression test in Table -12 evaluated the set of hypotheses H4-1, H4-2 and H4-3. The

regression results between the three Independent factors and “Pleasant Outdoor Space” as dependent factor was

displayed in the same table. “F” value of (66.208) showed high significant at a value of p< 0.001, “R” value

was (0.640) so that adjusted “R square” value was (0.403) which means 40.3 % of variation in the courtyard as

“Pleasant Outdoor Space” was shaped by the three factors of Independent variable. The (t) value of the

independent factor “Courtyard Environmental Comfort and Decoration” was (8.681) with individual

ICGRE 197-9

significance value of < 0.001. This factor had the greatest impact in predicting the courtyard as “Pleasant

Outdoor Space” with beta value of (0.409). The factor “Courtyard Area and Services” which had (t) value of

(8.346) and came in the second place of importance in predicting the courtyard as “Pleasant Outdoor Space”,

with beta value (0.393). In the meantime, the (t) value of the factor “Courtyard Noise” was (0.836) and showed

an individual non-significant value of 0.404 with very small beta value of (0.038).

Table :12 Regression test for the set of hypotheses H4-1, H4-2 and H4-3.

Relationship F value Sig

level

R Adjusted R

square

Factor t* β Hypothesis

validation

Pleasant

Outdoor

Space (with)

66.208 <0.001 0.640 0.403 1. Courtyard Area and

services

8.346 0.393 H4-1 was

considered as

supported

2. Courtyard

Environmental


8.681 0.409 H4-2 was

considered as

supported

3. Courtyard Noise 0.836 0.038 H4-3 was

considered as

rejected

* t value shows significance for factor 1 and 2 with values of < .001 while there is no significance for factor 3 with value of .0404

The outcome of regression test shown in Table-13 evaluated the set of hypotheses H5-1, H5-2 and H5-3.

The regression results between the three Independent factors and “Suitable place for social interaction and break

meal” as dependent factor was displayed in the same table. “F” value of (21.130) showed high significant at a

value of p< 0.001, “R” value was (0.425). so that adjusted “R square” value was (0.172), which means 17.2 %

of variation in courtyard as “Suitable place for social interaction and break meal” was shaped by the three

factors of the Independent variable, the (t) value of the independent factor “Courtyard Area and Services” was

(4.446). This factor had the greatest impact in predicting the courtyard as “Suitable place for social interaction

and break meal” with beta value of (0.247). The factor “Courtyard Environmental Comfort and Decoration”

which had (t) value of (4.274) and came in the second place of importance in predicting the courtyard as

“Suitable place for social interaction and break meal”, its beta value was (0.237). Moreover, the (t) value of the

factor “Courtyard Noise” was (-3.341) and showed an individual significant value of 0.001 with beta value of (-

0.179).

Table 13: Regression test for the set of hypotheses H5-1, H5-2 and H5-3.

Relationship F

value

Sig

level

R Adjusted

R square


Suitable place for

social interaction

and break meal

(with)

21.13 <0.001 0.425 0.172 1. Courtyard Area

and services

4.446 0.247 H5-1 was considered

as supported

2. Courtyard

Environmental

Comfort &

Decoration

4.274 0.237 H5-2 was considered

as supported

3. Courtyard Noise -3.341 -0.179 H5-3 was considered

as supported

* t value shows significance for factor 1 and 2 and 3 with values of < .001 for factor 1 and factor 2 and with 0.001 for factor 3.

The outcomes of the research supported the uniqueness of the study; it gave clear explanation about the

student satisfaction dimensions in conjunction with the dimensions of the school courtyard design. In the

meanwhile the study had shown that among the three Independent dimensions the “Courtyard Environmental

ICGRE 197-10

Comfort and Decoration”, was reported to be the strongest dimension in shaping most of the factors of the

“Student Satisfaction”. The next strongest one was reported to be the “Courtyard Area and Services”. However,

the dimension “Courtyard Noise” had no prediction role in most of the factors of “Student Satisfaction” as

global variable, but it did predict the dimension “Suitable place for social interaction and break meal” with high

significant relationship.

6. Conclusion The research demonstrated an empirical investigation regarding student satisfaction in schools associated

with their courtyard design; the investigation has opened the door for better understanding about what are the

factors that can make variations in Student satisfaction. The study has shown a statistical evidence that the

Courtyard Design can shape the Student Satisfaction, The results showed high relationship significance between

the School Courtyard Design and Student Satisfaction so that the courtyard design can shape the student

satisfaction as global variable with 29.2 %. Moreover, the courtyard design can predict the factors “Learning

Motivation” with 13.2 %, students’ “Physical and Mental Well-being” with 30.5%, courtyard as “Pleasant

Outdoor Space” with 40.3 % and courtyard as “Suitable place for social interaction and break meal” with 17.2

%. Thus, courtyard Design should be considered as an important physical element of the school design beside

any other resources contributing positively in the educational process.

Likewise, it has been statistically proved that the Courtyard Area is also playing significant role in shaping

all the ‘Students’ Satisfaction” dimensions, therefor courtyard’s area should be designed in a way that it can

accommodate the number of students, enable their free movement, reduces the pressure on the crowded areas

and allow the students to have suitable physical education, thus mental wellbeing.

Another point to be mentioned is that the courtyard area has influence on the student’s perception of the

courtyard as a pleasant outdoor space that can provide restful scene and meditation, especially when it had

landscape.

On the other hand, “School Courtyard Thermal Comfort and Decoration” is the most important predictor of

“Student Satisfaction” and its dimensions. Hence the courtyard should be designed from architecture point of

view with the right proportions in terms of length, width, and height of the adjacent masses to enhance the air

circulation inside the courtyard. Nevertheless, appropriate decoration should be designed in the courtyard

including nice suitable sitting area for the purpose of resting, having break meal, and encouraging students’

social interaction. It was clearly reported in the results that the courtyard noise has also significant impact on the

social interaction, thus the noise from the students and their activities in the courtyard should be encouraged in

order to increase students’ socialization and to make the courtyard convenient place for having the break meal.

References [1] Mumovic, D. and Santamouris, M. 2009. A handbook of sustainable building design and engineering.

London: Earthscan.

[2] Li, X., Zhou, Y., Yu, S., Jia, G., Li, H. and Li, W., 2019. Urban heat island impacts on building energy

consumption: A review of approaches and findings. Energy.

[3] Muhaisen, A. and Gadi, M. 2005. Mathematical model for calculating the shaded and sunlit areas in a

circular courtyard geometry. Building and Environment 40(12), pp. 1619-1625.

[4] ALAOUI, M.S.H., GURAOUI, K. and BELKASSMI, Y., 2019, July. Numerical and Mathematical

Simulation of the Energy Efficiency of Traditional Buildings for Thermal Comfort. In 2019 International

Conference of Computer Science and Renewable Energies (ICCSRE) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

[5] Edwards, B. 2006. Courtyard housing. Abingdon [England]: Taylor & Francis.

[6] Hausladen, G., Liedl, P. and de Saldanha, M. 2011. Building to Suit the Climate. Basel: De Gruyter.

[7] Salameh, M. and Taleb, H., 2017, April. Courtyard as passive design solution for school buildings in hot

area. In World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering (CSEE’17) Barcelona (Vol.

141, pp. 2371-5294).

[8] SALAMEH, M., 2018. Courtyards as passive design solution for school buildings in hot areas: UAE as a

case study (Doctoral dissertation, The British University in Dubai (BUiD)).

ICGRE 197-11

[9] Reynolds, J. 2002. Courtyards. New York, NY: John Wiley.

[10] Koch-Nielsen, H. 2013. Stay Cool. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

[11] Rivera-Gómez, C., Diz-Mellado, E., Galán-Marín, C. and López-Cabeza, V., 2019. Tempering potential-

based evaluation of the courtyard microclimate as a combined function of aspect ratio and outdoor

temperature. Sustainable Cities and Society, 51, p.101740.

[12] Acosta, I., Navarro, J. and Sendra, J. 2014. Lighting design in courtyards: Predictive method of daylight

factors under overcast sky conditions. Renewable Energy 71, pp. 243-254.

[13] Al-Hafith, O., Satish, B.K. and De Wilde, P., 2019, November. The impact of courtyard geometry on its

mean radiant temperature.In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1343, No. 1, p. 012022). IOP

Publishing.

[14] Brown, R. and Mazzarol, T. 2008. The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty

within higher education. High Educ 58(1), pp. 81-95.

[15] Grossman, B. and Goodhart, F. 2002. Assessing Student Staff Motivation and Satisfaction to Strengthen

Health Education Services. Journal of American College Health 51(1), pp. 38-41.

[16] Beck, B., Taskan, G. and BogenÃ§, Ã‡. 2013. The effect of courtyard designs on young people, which

have been made according to different functional preferences. Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.11

(3&4): 1 8 0 4 - 1 8 1 3 . 2 0 1 3.

[17] Teshnehdel, S., Mirnezami, S., Saber, A., Pourzangbar, A. and Olabi, A.G., 2020. Data-driven and

numerical approaches to predict thermal comfort in traditional courtyards. Sustainable Energy

Technologies and Assessments, 37, p.100569.

[18] Rigolon, A. (2010), "European Design Types for 21st Century Schools: An Overview", CELE Exchange,

Centre for Effective Learning Environments, No. 2010/03, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[19] Martirosyan, N., Saxon, P. and Wanjohi, R. 2014. Student Satisfaction and Academic Performance in

Armenian Higher Education. Student Satisfaction and Academic PerformancAmerican International

Journal of Contemporary Research Vol. 4 No. 2.

[20] Uline, C. and Tschannen-Moran, M. 2008. The walls speak: the interplay of quality facilities, school

climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Admin 46(1), pp. 55-73.

[21] Martirosyan, N. (2015). An examination of factors contributing to student satisfaction in Armenian higher

education. Intl Jnl of Educational Mgt, 29(2), pp.177-191.

[22] Walden, R. (2016). Schools for the Future. [Online] Google Books.

[23] Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A. and Öhrström, E. (2010). Attractive "Quiet" Courtyards: A Potential Modifier of

Urban Residents' Responses to Road Traffic Noise?. International Journal of Environmental Research and

Public Health, 7(9), pp.3359-3375.

[24] Kolozali, R., Kolozali. T.(2016).The Role of the Courtyard in the Establishment of Architecture in Cyprus.

Architecture Research: scientific and academic publishing. p-ISSN: 2168-507X e-ISSN: 2168-5088 ; 6(5):

123-130.

[25] Hawker, C. 2012. Physical activity and mental well-being in student nurses. Nurse Education Today 32(3),

pp. 325-331.

[26] Markus, B., Malsiah, H., Lim, Y.W. and Tanko, B.L. (2017) Examination of Courtyard Dimensions and

Proportions In Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Buildings. International, Journal of Real State Studies

(Vol.11, N 2)

[27] Matsuoka, R. 2010. Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links. Landscape and

Urban Planning 97(4), pp. 273-282.

[28] Lau, S.S. and Yang, F., 2009. Introducing healing gardens into a compact university campus: design natural

space to create healthy and sustainable campuses. Landscape Research, 34(1), pp.55-81.

[29] Matsuoka, R. and Kaplan, R. 2008. People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of Landscape And Urban

Planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning 84(1), pp. 7-19.

[30] Eddy, A. (2018). Take it outside: the added benefits of school courtyards | Birchwood Design Group.

[Online] Birchwooddesigngroup.com. Available at: http://birchwooddesigngroup.com/take-it-outside-the-

added-benefits-of-school-courtyards/ [Accessed 2 Jan. 2018].

ICGRE 197-12

[31] Xue, P., Mak, C.M. and Cheung, H.D., 2014. The effects of daylighting and human behavior on luminous

comfort in residential buildings: A questionnaire survey. Building and Environment, 81, pp.51-59.

[32] Berk, K., Voelkl, K. and Gerber, S. 2000. Using SPSS for Windows: Data Analysis and Graphics. The

American Statistician 54(1), p. 82.

[33] Anon 2014. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. And Sex and Drugs and Rock'n'Roll. Pflege

27(6), pp. 430-430.

[34] Suliman, A. 2001. Work performance: is it one thing or many things? The multidimensionality of

performance in a Middle Eastern context. International Journal of Human Resource Management 12(6), pp.

1049-1061

[35] Suliman, A. and Al Kathairi, M. 2012. Organizational justice, commitment and performance in developing

countries. Employee Relations 35(1), pp. 98-115.

courtyard design in schools and its influence on students’ … · 2020. 10. 12. · martirosyan...

Documents